Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2017 22:08:53 GMT
@miccee said: I'm posting that particular link because most of the world's population believes in religious apologias. And the only secular definitions of free will would be ones which admit that our behaviours are pre-determined ('free' will is just defined in such a way that it isn't free in any meaningful sense).
My answer was, as already pointed out, in no way a non sequitur. The fact that we seem to make a choice is evidence, whether you like it or not, or decide to call it "hipster" or continue bungle basics like "non sequitur". And I still don't care about your soup of unwarranted and arbitrary assertions.
And any arguments you attempt against religion are rendered impotent by your free fielding of comically unsound positions and total disregard for probity in service to your quest.We assume that others like us have similar experiences to our own. And what we experience is the most significant evidence, as science has not come close yet to even explaining the mechanisms behind it, much less overturning it, regardless of your great need for a lazy but ineffective weapon to use against your frenemy religion.
And ability to distinguish it from sufficiently advanced fakery in others is orthogonal to whether it exists as we experience with ourselves. As much as you wish, you can't magic wand it away with free assertion and forehead-smacking "logic".
Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong?
The answer I referred to as a non-sequitur was this: "The evidence is that we live and experience. " and that did seem like an incongruous thing say, but then I should be used to your garbled answers and have realised that you meant "the evidence is our experiences".
So that's my fault, I suppose, for failing to correctly interpret one of your garbled responses. Regardless, our experience, in and of itself, is no evidence for free will. Our experience of forming a decision can more completely be explained by saying that we are formed with a certain predisposition, bias and preference and our thoughts will automatically tend to conform to those facets of our character. That would be the most economical explanation, as opposed to introducing this nebulously defined and extraneous element "free will". In this instance, positing free will where it is not needed is akin to positing the existence of an ethereal soul. In fact, an ethereal soul would be required in order to direct our brain matter on which thoughts to think (but would still leave the not-trivial difficulty of explaining how the soul reached its decision). If it's impossible to explain whence free will originates, exactly what it's role is and how we would be able to measure its presence or absence in an artificial intelligence, then it is unnecessary to conjecture its existence except for purposes of emotional comfort.